Beta Fulltext view is in preview — article structure may vary. Browse all articles
Contents
Philosophy International Journal Research Article 2 min read

Ethical Nodes in the Philosophy of Science

Shevtsov S*
* Corresponding author
ISSN: 2641-9130  10.23880/phij-16000236  Received: March 15, 2022  Published: April 06, 2022
 — views
 22 references
PDF
Keywords
Philosophy of science Scientific knowledge Ethics Reliability Value
Abstract

Ethical issues are becoming increasingly central to contemporary philosophy of science. This is evidence of a change in the nature and forms of activity of scientific communities. This also shows the presence of a certain crisis in science itself, because its own methods are not enough to solve the growing problems. The article offers an analysis of some of the problems for which scientists turn to deontological ethics: the reliability of the results of scientific research, the influence of values on ongoing research, the responsibility of the scientist.

References

  1. Pfeifer J, Sarkar S (2006) The Philosophy of Science: An Introduction. In: Sahotra S, Pfeifer J (Eds.), The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia: 2-Volume Set. New York and London: Routledge, pp: 11-26.
  2. Sismondo S (2009) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd (Edn.), West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell.
  3. Segerstråle U (2000) Beyond the Science Wars: The Missing Discourse about Science and Society. State University of New York Press.
  4. Brown JR (2001) Who Rules in Science?: An Opinionated Guide to the Wars. Harvard University Press.
  5. Leane E (2007) Reading Popular Physics: Disciplinary Skirmishes and Textual Strategies. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  6. Helsing D (2019) The Literary Construction of the Universe Narratives of Truth, Transcendence, and Triumph in Contemporary Anglo-American Popularizations of Physics and Astronomy. Lund University.
  7. Bauchspies WK, Croissant J, Restivo S (2006) Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. Blackwell Publishing.
  8. Douglas (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  9. Douglas H (2000) Inductive Risk and Values in Science. Philosophy of Science 67(4): 559-579.
  10. Elliott KC (2011) Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science. Philosophy of Science 78(2): 303-324.
  11. Steel D, Whyte K (2012) Environmental Justice, Values, and Scientific Expertise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22(2): 163-182.
  12. Davies B (2005) Whither Mathematics?. Notices of the AMS 52(11): 1355-1356.
  13. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2013) Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(1): 2-17.
  14. Tatsioni A, Bonitsis N, Ioannidis JPA (2007) The Persistence of Contradicted Claims in the Literature. Journal of the American Medical Association 298(21): 2517-2526.
  15. Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science. Public Library of Science Medicine 5(10): e201.
  16. Loken E, Gelman A (2017) Measurement Error and the Replication Crisis. Science 355(6325): 584-585.
  17. Redish AD, Kummerfeld E, Morris RL, Love AC (2018) Opinion: Why Reproducibility Failures Are Essential to Scientific Inquiry. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(20): 5042-5046.
  18. Hardwig J (1985) Epistemic Dependence. Journal of Philosophy 82(7): 335-349.
  19. Laudan L (1983) The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Cohan RS, Laudan L (Eds.), Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp: 111-127.
  20. Pigliucci M (2013) The demarcation problem. A (belated) response to Laudan. In: Pigliucci M, Boudry M. (Eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp: 9-28.
  21. Mahner M (2013) Science and pseudoscience. How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of the demarcation problem. In: Pigliucci M, Boudry M (Eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp: 29-43.
  22. Winsberg E, Huebner B, Kukla R (2014) Accountability and Values in Radically Collaborative Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A) 46: 16-23.
More from this journal

Cite this article

BibTeX
APA
RIS
@article{shevtsov2022,
  title   = {Ethical Nodes in the Philosophy of Science},
  author  = {Shevtsov S},
  journal = {Philosophy International Journal},
  year    = {2022},
  volume  = {5},
  number  = {2},
  doi     = {10.23880/phij-16000236}
}
Shevtsov S (2022). Ethical Nodes in the Philosophy of Science. Philosophy International Journal, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.23880/phij-16000236
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Ethical Nodes in the Philosophy of Science
AU  - Shevtsov S
JO  - Philosophy International Journal
PY  - 2022
VL  - 5
IS  - 2
DO  - 10.23880/phij-16000236
ER  -